BINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reference of this petition has been to Full Bench necessitated on account of a reference order made by learned Single Judge, while appreciating and examining the merits of the petition being C.W.J.C. No. 5777 of 2002. It was felt by learned Single Bench that in view of two Division Bench, decisions rendered in (1) Susil Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (2) BLJ 525 : 2001 (4) PLJR 678 and (2) Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (2) PLJR 151 that are seemingly contradictory to each other. Therefore, it was thought by the learned Single Judge to have one authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench to resolve the conflict between the two Division Bench judgments. That is how, the learned Single Judge was prompted to refer the matter so that this issue of vital public interest relating to jurisdiction of this Court may be settled, by the Full Bench Let it be also, recalled that in the said reference ,order it has been observed : Let it be placed before a Division Bench for appropriate orders after obtaining orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

(2.) IT appears that there are, also, contradictory versions in paragraphs 4 and 5 and, presumably, the expression 'Division Bench' in paragraph 5 of the reference order has unnecessarily detained us, as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has repeatedly submitted that the reference order does not speak about the constitution of the Full Bench to which we do not consider at this stage even worth the candle to go into it in view of the clear observation of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 4, as well as, the provisions in relevant Rules.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the parties have, also, stated during submissions, upon consensus, that there is no conflict in them. Let it be mentioned that there is a consensus on either side that there is no conflict between aforesaid two judgments. If this be the position, the question as to which is the authoritative pronouncement cannot be gone into. It is, rightly, therefore, jointly, submitted that when there is no any apparent conflict or dissent or any contradiction in the aforesaid two Division Bench decisions of this Court, this Court need not divulge and examine other aspects as to which is the authoritative pronouncement.